>From: "Stephen Carville" <carville@cpl.net>
>
>Are you daft?
>
>Microsoft is no friend of freedom. For a list of who Microsoft gives
>its support (i.e. money) to got to:
>
>http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgot/2000/00227546.htm
>
>Not exactly a who's who of freedom lovers. Note the contributions
>given to such notorious anti-gun nuts as Diane Feinstein. Joseph
>Lieberman, Jay Inslee, and Edward Kennedy.
>
>It can be argued that Microsoft is making these contributions
>because they are in the best interests of the Corporation
>independent of other political considerations. It is true some of
>the politicians listed have expressed opposition to the anti-trust
>suit. OTOH, some have not. The only common threads I see there are
>anti-gun and pro drug-war. Not exactly friends of the Bill of
>Rights.
>- - -
>Stephen Carville
>http://www.heronforge.net/~stephen/gnupgkey.txt

Considering the history of bugs in Microsoft products, the above
makes perfect sense:

(1) There is some evidence to imply that the stuff was coded by
programmers who were "CUI" (Coding Under the Influence)

(2) I suspect some folks at Microsoft are a wee bit worried that one
to many "Blue Screens of Death" could lead an unbalanced individual
to taking revenge.

I've read this before, and was disgusted by most of it. Haven't had
time to respond to it.

The faq contains the following blurb, which comprises the entire
section on quotes by Ayn Rand:

>Ayn Rand&gt "I shall choose friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters."
&gt Did Ayn Rand pay her taxes out of friendship then? That's a new one
&gt on me.

First of all, how can the author be sure that she did pay her taxes?
<grin>

Second, assuming that she did pay them, I'm sure that she paid her
taxes because she understood, better than most people, the nature of
the relationship between her and the state.

She paid her taxes for the same reason many (if not most) people do,
not because they like to or agree with the purposes to which the
taxes are put. She paid her taxes because she knew that if she
refused, she was subject to loss of life, liberty, and property. And,
given her notoriety and publicly stated positions, she was likely
subject to enhanced scrutiny during any such 'enforcement.'

The proper question, which as far as I can see is avoided in the faq,
is: When is it proper and moral to use (or threaten to use) force
against free human beings? When they aren't forthcoming with their
taxes? When they don't wear seatbelts? When they don't carry
mandatory automobile insurance? When they don't have "driver's"
licenses? When they spit on the sidewalk? Where do YOU draw the line?

The 'faq' is so full of half-truths and unexplored consequences, that
it screams out for a paragraph-by-paragraph critique of the arguments
presented therein. It would be useful to then post these critiques in
a modified version of the faq, placed on one of our websites. If
anyone who would like to contribute to such a project, please send me
an email.

<<
By using microwave LASER reflected off of windowpanes, noises inside
of houses can be heard clearly with the use of a receiver-decoder.
The windowpane acts as a tympanic membrane, resonating every sound,
said LASER beam dopplers as it is reflected back, emulating the
movement of the window. The Pentagon pipes white noise and Muzak
through their outward facing windows to countermeasure this, unlike
the rest of us saps who are vulnerable to this type of eavesdropping.
>>

Is there any reason that the market could not address this? Couldn't
some company arise that could mass-market devices that broadcast
Muzak and white noise out of the windows of ordinary people? Are
there any companies that make windows out of something other than
glass? What about windows made out of something that doesn't conduct
sound AND prevents people outside from being able to look inside?
With all of this police-state activity going on you'd think that
someone would devise a means of countering the snooping.

I agree with much of your letter "Bad Kids", published in TLE issue
#110, except for the quip concerning "illegal" immigrants.

First, "illegal" residents use social services at a much lower rate
than the "legal" residents, as proven in numerous studies (check
Reason.com, Free-Market.net or other websites for sources).

Also, in response to some arguements against "illegal" immigration,
"illegal" residents do pay taxes, such as sales and property taxes,
although often times they pay no income taxes (which doesn't bother
me, after all, that's only less money for the government to waste).

In short, the only way you can make someone an "illegal" resident is
to make it "illegal" for that person to enter in contracts with
others. That is, it is (naturally) "illegal" for me to hire an
"illegal" resident to do some landscaping around my building -- which
is in violation of not only his property rights (his right to use his
own labor as he sees fit, at mutually agreed wages), but my property
rights also (my right to hire, or not hire, anyone I wish at mutually
agreed wages).

Fine, if you don't like Mexicans, then don't eat at their
restaurants.

I found this after seeing an ad in Reason magazine, for an old book
by Edgar Lee Masters, titled "Lincoln - The Man". After reading some
of his essays, I fully intend on purchasing the above titled book.

After searching the web, I came across this. It's a bit long, but
well worth the read.

In my opinion, it lays bare the deceptions and evasions used to
justify what was, at the time of its writing (1904!), significant
"departures" from prior understandings (call them usurpations) of the
plain meaning of the Constitution. I have never read a more
straightforward and compelling exploration of the logical fallacies
of those who see the Constitution as providing limitless Federal
power.

From: "JACK JEROME" <paratime98@yahoo.com>
To: "John Taylor" <tle@johntaylor.org>
Subject: What the heck do citizens have to do with the military?
Date: Tuesday, February 27, 2001 11:54 PM

Howdy John,

Just a quick note that someone more learned among your readers may
want to expand on. Visitors to submarines, tanks, helicopters, and
jet fighters are exceedingly rare under the best of circumstances.
Now, due in no small part to a sad incident in the Pacific, they may
now be unheard of.

By news reports, Americans have been inundated with the idea that
civilians interfered with U.S. Navy crewmen operating an attack
submarine, causing the death of Japanese students.

My gut feeling is that, although civilians may have been present at
the time, this tragedy was due primarily to command negligence.
Investigators for the Judge Advocate General will reveal this soon, I
trust. This does give a great excuse to banish, possibly forever,
civilian involvement in matters military.

Why the push to remove citizens out of the equation of matters
military? Severely limiting non-military oversight of men and
ordinance creates a discomforting precedent. Precedents that have
occurred in formerly benign regimes resulting in loss of liberty and
life.

Certainly all Libertarians would agree that the best defense is a
good offense, but an independent military class without civilian
involvement could be prelude to dictatorship.

There I go being paranoid again, but shouldn't we be more concerned
with the loss of innocent life due to this accident, rather than
affixing blame on citizens? I don't have answers, but the questions
about this makes the hair on the back of my neck start to rise.

There's a book being advertised at www.crashmaker.com that
libertarians might want to take a look at. Here are a few excerpts
from the promo:

Why You Want to Read This Book

CRA$HMAKER is more than an exciting story about an engineered
crash of the Federal Reserve System and the markets that could
actually happen. It also offers a stimulating education in the
philosophy and practice of limited, constitutional government,
and in the free-market economics of money and banking.

You may love what you read in CRA$HMAKER -- or hate it -- but
when you are finished you will understand contemporary American
government, and the forces behind it, as never before. And you
will know why America is no longer "the land of the free", who is
responsible, and what needs to be done before Americans forfeit
forever the "Blessings of Liberty" that the Founding Fathers
bequeathed to them in the Constitution of 1787.

Your FAQ criticism of libertarianism is certainly is thorough ...
Perhaps I missed it, but do you also have a line-by-line criticism of
Public Choice theory? I'm curious, since Public Choice offers a
pretty cohesive explanation of why, for example, if cars are produced
by government they are expensive, small, and shoddy, whereas cars
produced in a completive environment come much closer to meeting the
customer's preferences. Public choice examines the incentives, and
explains why everything the government does is apt to go awry.

It is the incentives that matter so much.

In your intro, you are spot on with the observations about various
flavors of libertarianism. I'm of the opinion that minarchists have
the least coherent view. That's always been my objection to Rand's
concepts of government...they are internally inconsistent.

OTOH, I think the individualist anarchist view (often called
anarcho-capitalism, though that's confusing a philosophy with an
outcome) can be made at least as coherent as any philosophy espousing
the necessity of government. Government centered philosophies
inevitably suffer the evil-man, ambitious man problem. By definition,
if men can choose evil, it will be those most power-hungry (and evil)
who are most attracted to the halls of government. The corollary
would be that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao would have been at most, petty
criminals without the staff of government in hand.

While you've no doubt received much mail over the years, I will Cliff
Notes mine with the notion that people don't like to be bossed
around. They prefer to make the most of what they have, and follow
individual paths toward their concept of as much happiness as is
available. Since I don't see how a philosophy can be anything other
than universal, I cannot adopt one that applied to some people and
not others. Therefore some people cannot be a means to other people's
ends against their will. Since people are born different (richer
parents, poorer parents, smarter, faster, slower than others)
outcomes will differ in the pursuit of happiness. I think history
shows that high levels of autonomy result in a "raising of all
boats."

Human interaction can be coercive or voluntary. (Nature's coercion is
NOT the same thing, so suggesting that my natural requirement for
food is justification for coercing another for his food surplus is
absurd.) Suffice it to say that I think people are happier, and the
opportunities to pursue happiness are maximized, when coercion is
minimized. Since government is institutionalized coercion (give me a
break...laws don't ask, they tell and attach penalties for
non-compliance...that's hardly voluntary), it follows that minimizing
it is beneficial. And since government follows the same survival
dictates as any parasite, it will always grow. Hence, limited
government is an oxymoron.

[BTW, to the extent that individuals have any say in the law making
process, it is negligible. Elections are poor substitutes for the
market in determining individual preferences...a prime example is
surveys of investor bullishness; a survey asks people their opinion,
but there is no trade-off in such a survey as there is in the real
world. To discover the actual bullishness of investors, one has to
consult a venue where the "participants" actually make economic
choices between alternatives. You'd be shocked at how much the verbal
surveys differ from asset allocation at a market timing mutual fund.
Unless people are putting up a "bet" of some sort, the information
yielded is meaningless, just like an election. Since the process for
determining the direction of government is so shoddy, the outcomes
from government can be no better...and aren't, in practice.]

To sum, I think it feasible that every necessary product of
government can be done privately, which re-orders the incentives (no
such thing as Sovereign Immunity, for instance! How's that for
dis-incenting the egregious behavior of some cops, prosecutors, and
other vermin). If coercion is to be minimized, it is through private
organizations which lack the mysticism of government. Thus, to me,
government is an unnecessary evil.

One small area did jump out at me...your restatement of a "world's
smallest political quiz," socialist-style. In asking should "people
help each other," you suggested the libertarian would still answer
Yes. I would opine that a socialist or communitarian would readily
add the word "compelled" to that statement, making it anathema to a
libertarian. Therein appears the difference between us... You appear
to think society is bettered by a fine network of rules dictating
behavior in many spheres of human life. A libertarian would see the
difference between performing a kindness freely vs. doing what is
deemed right by those in power under duress.

And as to Social Contract ... I've read Rousseau ... and know what he
means when he says that if the Prince requires you to lay down your
life for his purposes, you are to do so without question. You may
wish to live where the Social Contract is so ... I won't.

And as to slavery, capitalism hardly determined its existence. It was
government that recognized the right in property of one man in
another. This is philosophy, not economic organization. Capitalism is
not philosophy. It is the economic system that results from the
philosophy of private property, freedom of contract, and mutually
voluntary exchange. It is quite clear that most of human existence
has considered acceptable the notion of people being property. But
I'd offer to you that pro-State philosophies are absolutely
consistent with this notion. A slave is the use of one man as a means
to another man's ends, without regard to the self ownership of the
slave. When citizens are viewed as property of the state (and this is
fairly explicit with Rousseau's Social Contract you seemed to
espouse), the rulers are put in the position of using some people as
means to benefit others (and inevitably themselves, the rulers, too).
This is progressive taxation's central canon. It is the very heart of
the Welfare State. It is the foundation for Social Security,
Medicaid, and Medicare.

Now I would suggest that slavery of this sort or that of the chattel
variety is inconsistent with a defensible definition of What is a
man? The definition of this construct is (and should be) the basis
for what we should be willing to fight to the last bullet over. I am
not a slave, and those who wish to make me one deserve resistance.
(Like many other 'libertarians' I consider total taxation percentages
to be a proxy for partial slavery...so when I work until May to pay
off all the liens various government entities have placed against my
produce and my property, during that period I am a slave. Monopolies
only exist with the sanction of that greatest monopoly,
government. As long as I have no choice from whom I purchase services
monopolized by the state, I have no way of eliminating my payment for
services neither used nor desired, or of determining the proper
charges for the services I require. Proper pricing is impossible
without a market to establish prices).

The long term history of man, in my view, is one of decreasing
government and increasing autonomy. We've been in a period of
back-sliding for over a century, but this too will pass. People
progress by individual initiative and productivity, and it is natural
for people to resent others who free-ride on their backs. When I see
the millions of people in the US who've figured out how to live an
acceptable life simply by parasitizing me and others like me, I
desire badly to throw off their shackles and enjoy the entirety of
the fruits of my labors. I produce less than I could, simply because
the marginal benefit to me is so reduced due to that parasitism. I
assure you I and millions like me will daily search for a way to keep
that marginal benefit, and cut off the leeches. Technology will
inevitably be our friend, given certain developments which occur as I
write this. And as government is marginalized, mankind's lot will
improve from any reasonable perspective. To believe otherwise is to
discount fully the improvement in standard of living of the last
millennium (since I cannot see any rational argument for attributing
it to government).

Thank you for challenging me to defend my philosophical base. You may
not agree, but I feel my arguments remain solid, based on
observation, and remain a reasonable guide to my interpretation of
the world around me. It is this interpretation that is the basis for
human survival. If I see signs of an impending change for the worse
in the US (which could happen at any time), I will move my family
from out of harm's way. I will leave before they close the borders to
military-age men (remember? Lincoln did that during the Civil War).
Statism is a modern day religion. Many of your FAQ arguments are
rationalizations for accepting its worst. Given the history of "its
worst," I think there will be safer places to thrive, using the
insights my philosophy yields. LOL